Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute between landlords (respondents) and tenants (petitioners) over eviction from suit premises. The respondents, owners of the property, let out four rooms on the first floor to petitioner no.1 under an agreement dated 21 January 1965 at a monthly rent of Rs.110. On 31 March 1987, the respondents issued a notice to quit terminating the tenancy by 30 April 1987. When the tenant failed to vacate, the respondents filed Suit No.719 of 1987 for possession, joining petitioner no.2 (brother of petitioner no.1) as a party to avoid obstruction. The ground for eviction was that petitioner no.1 had purchased/acquired his own flat in a building called 'Supurti' in Bank of Maharashtra Cooperative Housing Society, Pune, making him liable for eviction under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. In the trial court, it was not seriously disputed that petitioner no.1 had acquired alternate premises in 1970-71. The petitioners contended that the suit filed in 1987 was barred by limitation as more than 12 years had elapsed from the date of acquisition. The trial court upheld this defence and dismissed the suit as time-barred. However, the lower appellate court reversed the decision, holding the suit within limitation, and passed a decree for possession. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court framed the issue of limitation. It examined Articles 66 and 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and held that Article 67 applies to suits for possession by a landlord against a tenant on the ground of acquisition of alternate premises, providing a 12-year period from the date of acquisition. The court noted that the date of acquisition is when the tenant acquires a vested interest, not when the landlord discovers it. Since the tenant acquired the alternate premises in 1970-71, the suit filed on 29 April 1987 was beyond 12 years and thus barred by limitation. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate court's decree, and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 67 - Suit for Possession - Acquisition of Alternate Premises - The suit for possession by landlord against tenant on ground of acquisition of alternate premises under Section 13(1)(l) of Bombay Rent Act is governed by Article 67 of Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a period of 12 years from the date when the tenant acquires a vested interest in the alternate premises. The date of acquisition is the date when the tenant acquires interest, not when the landlord discovers the acquisition. In this case, the tenant acquired alternate premises in 1970-71, and the suit filed in 1987 was beyond 12 years and thus barred by limitation. (Paras 4-8) B) Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Section 13(1)(l) - Eviction - Acquisition of Alternate Accommodation - The ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(l) arises when the tenant has acquired or built a suitable residence. The limitation period for such suit starts from the date of acquisition of the alternate premises. The court held that the suit filed after 12 years from acquisition is time-barred, and the landlord cannot rely on the date of discovery of acquisition. (Paras 3-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for possession filed on 29 April 1987 was barred by limitation under Article 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963, when the tenant had acquired alternate premises in the year 1970-71.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment and order dated 17 October 1994 of the IInd Additional District Judge, Pune, and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit.
Law Points
- Limitation period for suit for possession on ground of acquisition of alternate premises under Section 13(1)(l) of Bombay Rent Act is governed by Article 67 of Limitation Act
- 1963
- which provides 12 years from date of acquisition
- date of acquisition is when tenant acquires interest in alternate premises
- not when landlord discovers it
- suit filed beyond 12 years from acquisition is barred by limitation.
